1. The Defendant’s KRW 162,823,112 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 5% from March 13, 2014 to July 16, 2019, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The following facts are acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 to 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and was in charge of the press room operations. 2) On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the suppression of the hands by the press room, where the Defendant’s protective devices were released at the Defendant plant, and the Defendant was engaged in the product production operations using A.A. 20 tons presses at the Defendant plant, while the Defendant was carrying the press room, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the suppression of the hands by the press room from the wind (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. 1) The business owner, who runs a business using the presses, is obligated to install protective devices on the presses as part of the duty to protect workers’ life health, and to not release protective devices except for the case where protective devices themselves are repaired, adjusted or replaced (main sentence of Articles 103(1) and 93(1) of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health Standards). At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant at the time of the instant accident, was negligent in cancelling the protective custody of the presses working for the Plaintiff without justifiable grounds. There is a proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s negligence and the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident based on the nonperformance liability arising from the breach of the duty to protect the Plaintiff. (2) However, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the fact that the Plaintiff was found to have been negligent in operating the presses.

3. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit on June 25, 2018, which was obvious that the Plaintiff had passed three years since March 13, 2014, when the Plaintiff became aware of the damages and the perpetrator’s identity.